 |
| -Courtesy of orangeink.com- |
Early in this course we were subjected (treated?) to a video that explored the concepts of the Nature vs. Nurture debate. I would like to now take some time to play devils advocate and tear that video apart into tiny little pieces and explain just exactly why every part of that video was oh-so-very wrong. I am of course joking. However I would like to pull in the reigns on the views presented as feel though both sides of the coin were presented in much too extreme of a manner.
 |
| -Courtesy idahoforests.org- |
Starting with the "NATURE" viewpoint which showed us a few different sets of identical twins which were reared apart. While I do believe that we can end up with certain predispositions towards certain personality traits, we can act contrary to those predispositions. The example used in the video is of female twins raised separately in two strict households who despite external influences are very giggly. This is only one trait and without a full psychological profile, showing us only one trait of their personas just presents a biased view to falsely reinforce a point. More emphasis however was spent on a pair of brothers reared apart who seem to think the many similarities between them are largely due to their genetics. I however, was quick to notice the differences between the two including suit choices and enthusiasm in presentation. The brothers provide an extensive list of products that both of them use, unfortunately though this list is extensive, without probing into their lives there is nothing here but conjecture and amusing coincidences. Even something as simple as toothpaste has too many factors influencing its purchase such as: "what socioeconomic conditions were the brothers raised in?", "what was the value (either perceived or real) of the toothpaste in the markets?" "how prevalent was the advertising campaign in their area?" "how many other options were there?" these are just a few of the questions that must be answered to rule out the decision on toothpaste as anything other than an amusing coincidence. Another frustrating fact about the video presentation is again it never explicitly states which one of the Brothers was raised in an Italian household, and which one was raised in the Jewish household. I would go almost as far as betting money that the brother in the beige suit was raised by the Italian family. Although the evidence here is all empirical and stereotypical, as previously stated, "stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason". There are quite a few stereotypes present here. The brothers are wearing beige and black suits, beige being a more liberal colour is something you would expect to see an Italian wearing, combined with this, the beige brother is very vocal, we hear things mostly from his point of view. In fact we only hear from the brother in the black suit once during the entire presentation, during his speech he is quite reserved and he only discusses similarity in physical appearance, not in personality. These presentations are typical of what you would expect from Italian and Jewish culture.
 |
| -Courtesy blog.eteacherbiblical.com- |
When we move to the "NURTURE" viewpoint we are given an inside look into a "superchild academy" which again presents a heavily biased viewpoint because we aren't given an opportunity to hear from any of the children that are attending the academy nor do we get any exposure to any graduates from said academy. I do believe that children possess a great capacity for absorbing knowledge and skills, but I don't believe this to be indicative of any factor of a childs individual personality and it does seem to myself that in the video clips we are shown of the children they appear more akin to machines performing a function. Performing only because that is what they are told to do so. I did not see a 'spark' in any of these childrens eyes. For myself, there was no indication that there was any passion or enjoyment taken in their work, these were soulless tasks being performed for some sort of reward, in much the same way a McDonalds employee mans a cash register in exchange for a paycheque every two weeks. there is no 'soul' in their work. (perhaps these children didn't eat if they didn't get an A+ on their spelling bees?) I do on a personal level worry about these children. They are being imbued with great knowledge, but the basic needs for socialization, communication, true and unscheduled 'fun time', are these needs being fully met? Perhaps this institution is raising a cult of highly educated sociopaths rather than normal and well adjusted individuals.
Take the example of my highschool friend. This friend of mine in the last year of Junior High was always among the smartest children in the class, but never attained top of any class, there was always a few other individuals that would obtain higher accolades than her. Despite this, she was constantly referred to by instructors as one of the smartest students they had taught. When her parents probed further to question the instructors as they were aware she was not at the top of the class, they explained it as having a good mind for intellectual pursuits, but also good reasoning skills in social situations. Her peers lacked the same social reasoning skills as her and thus suffered from some of the unfortunate social issues such as labelling (geek, nerd, dork) that comes with school scenarios that she avoided. I have kept in touch with her and some of the top-of-the-class students, and though the highest achievers are doing incredible in their current fields of study, even now, over five years out of highschool, they still suffer from some unfortunate social issues due to their inability to easily socialize with others.
.
